We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, November 6. 2017
As we'd suspect, the shootings in Texas are being politicized by the anti-gun groups. It seems I can't turn around without some anti-gun nut calling for more laws, if not outright elimination of guns. As if that would actually stop these events. Of course, none of these people have called for elimination of autos or trucks, particularly after last week's events in NYC.
What we hear is 'but that was only 8 people killed by a truck while there were 58 in Vegas and 26 in Texas' as if scale is somehow meaningful. Frankly, I'm less concerned about numbers, and more concerned about means, motive and outcome. The assumption is that the means is a desire to use a weapon, so being concerned with autos is silly since few people use them as weapons. There is a massive flaw in this concept. Two flaws, really. First, they are used as weapons (Nice and London are just 2 recent examples, and ISIS has called for them to be used more...but I should add Charlottesville to the list) often enough to be of concern. Second, whether they are used as weapons or not, autos kill far more people every year than guns, and people aren't even trying. Imagine how the numbers would rise if they were. By any comparative measure, it's not even close. WE MUST BAN AUTOS AND TRUCKS!!
There were 35,485 auto deaths in 2015. That same year, there were 13,286 gun deaths. 60% of gun deaths are suicides, so let's reduce the number to 5,314 (I know people use autos to commit suicide, but the numbers are tiny). Gang and drug violence, as well as associated police activity, killed another 70% of that remainder, pushing gun deaths to 1,594 in 2015. Not a small number, but comparably speaking, relatively small. If sheer scale is the guide by which our decisions on policy should be made, we really need to be concerned more with autos, not guns. And we know the gun control nuts love to toss out numbers like 58 and 26, but ignore other numbers that undermine their position. Because 58 and 26 are big, big, scary numbers in standalone situations. Autos rarely kill that many in one fell swoop. I have read people say "my child could have been there" after a shooting, and that's true. But your child is more likely to be killed by an auto. While the individual numbers of auto deaths are much smaller by incident, the totals should be large enough to spark fear and calls for more legislation to outlaw these demon vehicles!
As far as motive goes, this is really where gun control nuts have a moderately useful discussion point. Because there are relatively few examples of autos used as weapons, especially here in the US. But drunk driving is a very real thing and represents a decent proportion of the number of auto deaths. That's 10,265 of the total auto deaths represented by driving while impaired. I'd say anyone who drinks and drives has a motive to kill or be killed, at least equivalent to the people who choose to shoot others. Even so, there is no comparison - autos are far more dangerous.
I used impaired driving because the motivation for impaired driving is really not too far off from the motivation of a mass shooter - usually these are people with severe personal problems who lack a means of managing their problems. Some drink, some express outrage and get guns. Many drinkers don't get behind the wheel of a car and many mentally ill gun owners don't go on murderous rages, but those who do are extremely dangerous. Yet drunk drivers are still more plentiful and dangerous than the mentally ill gun owners.
Some may say 'but we're taking action on drunk driving so we should take action on shooters, too.' Well, we are and we have. After all, it's illegal to drink and drive, and it's illegal to shoot people. In fact, since most mass shootings occur in gun-free zones, we can even say just having the guns in areas where they aren't allowed is the same as drinking and getting behind the wheel of a car. So action has been taking place. What more action makes sense? I'm open to ideas that help to reduce the chances of death, but not open to ideas that remove the (generalized) right to drive or the right to own guns.
Some may say 'we need stricter laws to prevent people from having guns, the way we take action against DUI by taking away licenses to drive'. Well, maybe, but maybe not. After all, many drunk drivers drive without a license anyway. And many mass shooters often purchase their weapons and ammo illegally. So the concept of 'more laws will make us safer' is absurd in the extreme. Clearly, people intent on injuring themselves and others care little for laws. We know Columbine saw an inordinate number of laws being broken. I'd suggest that having 20 more on the books wouldn't have helped a whit.
So let's focus on outcome. As far as I can tell, the main outcome we're concerned with in every case (gun or car) is death. If you were to ask me how would I prefer to die, I'm not really sure I care. After all, the result is the same. After I'm dead do I care that it was a bullet or a truck? Maybe my friends and family do, and perhaps that's why people get their knickers in a twist over guns. Because they are scary if you don't use or understand them. But I do know that you're likely to die more quickly and (hopefully) more painlessly with a gun than a car or truck. So maybe there's a benefit there? I don't think there is, but some might. In reality, the discussion of controlling guns centers around some form of survivor guilt and emotional association. They tend to feel cars have a value (I can get to point B from point A with one) but since they don't understand guns, they fail to see the value in owning one (having owned my own, I understand their value even when I'm not using them).
From my perspective, hearing a mother say "I want my child to be safe when he/she goes to church/concert/school" is a perfectly legitimate statement of fact. Nobody wants their kids to get hurt. But the numbers seem to indicate their kids are pretty safe from guns, and far more at risk from cars and trucks. So why the senselessness about being scared of guns?
I really don't know and simply can't understand it. More people die in NYC each day from crossing the street than die from randomized mass shooting events in the US. I take my life in my hands every day that I go into the city to work. For some reason, I'm still not interested in banning cars and trucks. As I said to a friend, I'll take my chances with guns. After all, you have to be less concerned that you happen to wander into a shooting situation - which is pure chance - than you have to be concerned about being plowed down in the street, which is far more likely to happen since you deliberately put yourself in harm's way each day.
As an added note, I like to point out that we've banned bombs, and yet bombs are still used from time to time. Let's not forget that the worst mass school killing in history, the Bath Schoolhouse, was a bomb. Technically, 9/11 was the use of 'bombs' (jets full of fuel are quite explosive). Boston Marathon utilized home made bombs. The Las Vegas shooter had bombs. Oklahoma City, the Unabomber, Eric Rudolph....I could keep going. Point is, banning something doesn't make you safer. Bombs are still made. For some reason people don't get as freaky about them when they are used. We don't call for more laws. Why not? Because they're already outlawed, and yet they still kill a large number of people. So we don't get politically upset with them anymore.
From my perspective, this is just a bunch of silly, misinformed idiots blathering on and on about something they are utterly and completely clueless about, egged on by moronic politicians with moral superiority as a calling card. They lack a proper understanding of statistics, history and politics. They are driven only by emotion and fear. But we know these are powerful tools for politicians.
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Of course, none of these people have called for elimination of autos or trucks, particularly after last week's events in NYC."
Or kitchen knives, stout sticks, nylon rope, chains, hammers or just about any other thing that might be used to perpetrate an attack of some sort.
People need to start packin' regularly. When you shoot back, they high tail it outta there. If you are going to outlaw guns and cars, etc.,outlaw wacked out anesthesiologist too.
I live about 2 hours from the site of Sunday's massacre. For about 5 years, our church has had an informal watch program to protect our members during services. There are almost always at least two of us watching the parking lot and main building during each of our services. Most of us are Licensed to Carry and do on the days we shepard our flock. It is always a relief to me that this hasn't happened at our church.
My prayers go out to the families of the victims.
It's so simple. The folks that are in favor of more gun control, go out and shoot a bunch of people. Then the other folks in favor of more gun control call for more gun control. In this particular case, they are even able to ignore the fact that the shooter was stopped by a civilian with a gun that chased the him down, while law enforcement headed to the church.
Deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled
1950 first seatbelt ~6
1968 first federal safety standards ~ 5
1974 federal 55 mph ~4
1978 first child safety seats
If you are familiar with the protocol of The Elite (whatever name you apply), they are developing Artificial Intelligence models off these planned mass destructions to gather data on how humans respond and, accordingly, how to take more control.
Pass this off as you may. I'm getting too old to make up stuff for potential plot lines for the media.
So let's focus on outcome.
Conditional arguments lose. Rightists lose a lot doing this.
>>>Of course, none of these people have called for elimination of autos or trucks, particularly after last week's events in NYC.
Interesting that some gloss over the reality that guns are the great equalizer. Is it that they believe that small people, frail people, elderly people, handicapped people, isolated people, and people who are not physically aggressive have no right to defend themselves? Are they just supposed to submit to an attack, beating or rape?
That's what the Vikings could count on when they raided towns. Kill the few men who could fight, then loot and rape to their hearts' content. Nobody but a trained warrior or very good archer was a danger to an armed spear-Dane.
I knew a woman online from another site years ago. She and I agreed on very little in the political arena. But one day the discussion turned to guns and she sided with me for a change. When her lib friends expressed outrage at this she explained that she was a small woman with a VERY big ex husband who had publicly threatened to kill her when he got the chance. So she went armed EVERYWHERE just knowing that some day he would jump out of the bushes and try it. She told us all that if guns were somehow banned she would be murdered.
I haven't had any updates from her in a decade or more, but I hope she is safe. Her story proved that guns are necessary for those who feel threatened. While Hollywood pumps out drivel about small women beating down big dudes, this is the reality that they sneer at, while those of us who can't afford body guards have to fend for ourselves.
Bulldog: There were 35,485 auto deaths in 2015. That same year, there were 13,286 gun deaths.
And only 3000 killed on 9-11-01. "Not a small number, but comparably speaking, relatively small."
As usual you miss the point by a country mile. If the argument was to ban airplanes because of the deaths caused by terrorists on 9/11 your point would be valid. But that is not the case. The argument is to ban/stop terrorists! That is a valid and logical conclusion. Not an easy one to implement but the correct one.
Banning guns for 330 million honest folks because one or two nut cases use guns to kill people is invalid and illogical. There is only one reason the alt-left wants to ban guns for honest citizens: Because people with guns won't get into the cattle cars when told to!
GoneWithTheWind: If the argument was to ban airplanes because of the deaths caused by terrorists on 9/11 your point would be valid.
In fact, airplanes are highly regulated.
GoneWithTheWind: There is only one reason the alt-left wants to ban guns for honest citizens: Because people with guns won't get into the cattle cars when told to!
Not sure what you mean by the "alt-left", but many people think that reasonable gun regulation would reduce the risk of mass casualty attacks, such as the one in Las Vegas that resulted in over 500 casualties.
According to the Wright and Rossi study, gun restrictions have little effect on crime and violence.
"Under the Gun: Weapons, Crime, and Violence in America"
JLawson: Describe reasonable.
Reasonable regulation would balance the need for self-defence with a desire to reduce the scale of mass casualty attacks. For instance, the U.S. already strictly regulates automatic weapons (though apparently the Las Vegas killer used a workaround).
Cars are already thoroughly controlled, taxed, and regulated. Explosives are completely regulated and controlled. Guns, thanks to the bill of rights, have limited control by the government.
This isn't about reducing crime or saving lives. This is about power and control.
“If I had run out of the house with a pistol and faced a bulletproof vest and kevlar and helmets, it might have been futile,” Willeford said. “I ran out with an AR-15 ...
@Zachriel : "reasonable regulation... balance need for self defence..." etc, etc.
read this, posted after Sandy Hook, by Larry Codreia:
"...The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started..."
Let me zoom in for you, Zach:
no good guys with guns on the scene (or supposedly good guys on the scene such as the LVPD who waited 70 minutes/did nothing to stop the shooter) = 14 dead on average from Mass Shooter.
Good guys there (and who take action against the vermin) = 2.5 dead.
Question, Zach: what would you rather see? More dead victims so that Sen Chris Murphy (D-CT) can dance in their blood shouting for more Gun CONTROL???
or less dead innocents (which equals more saved lives) because one of my fellow Americans was carrying and stepped up to the plate to stop the vermin?
Reasonable Regulation, Zach? Who defines what reasonable is in this issue? Moonbats like Murphy? Feinstein? Clinton? Obama?
to all these tyrants, I say --- Molon Labe, dudes - bullets first, if you don't mind...
the Jacksonian Grouch: "...The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by law enforcement: 14. The average number of people shot in a mass shooting event when the shooter is stopped by civilians: 2.5. The reason is simple. The armed civilians are there when it started..."
Don't suppose you have a primary source? Did they account for Las Vegas?
the Jacksonian Grouch: no good guys with guns on the scene (or supposedly good guys on the scene such as the LVPD who waited 70 minutes/did nothing to stop the shooter)
There were armed civilians in the vicinity, but they were ineffective. There were over 500 casualties.
the Jacksonian Grouch: Reasonable Regulation, Zach? Who defines what reasonable is in this issue?
We defined the goal of reasonable regulation; balance the need for self-defence with a desire to reduce the scale of mass casualty attacks. For instance, the U.S. already strictly regulates automatic weapons (though apparently the Las Vegas killer used a workaround).
Mandalay/Vegas shooting is the outlier of outliers - and you should keep in mind that all the information about what happened at Mandalay hasn't surfaced yet. I tell you this because you have used this event to attempt to contradict my points.
It's an outlier because pretty much every other mass shooting had the vermin close enough to be shot at by others. That wasn't the case in LV. At least, that's what I think you're saying when you reply "there were armed civilians in the vicinity".
Vicinity of what? at the Concert? Absolutely, i'm sure there were Americans carrying there. But vicinity to the shooter on the upper floors? 3-400 yards away? do you have an idea of the effective range of a .45?
Reasonable Regulation: Who is this "we" you refer to?
Correia posted primary sources a long time ago, which I don't have. He took about 30-40 incidents, by name, summarizing whether the vermin was stopped by a LEO, or by a well-and-properly-armed American already on scene.
coming back to your "reasonable regulation". Your conflation (balancing self defense vs desire to reduce scale of mass casualty attacks) tells me that your logic is faulty: you have reduced the correlation to be only about guns (your assumption, however civilly offered, is that guns must be more restricted in order to reduce scale of casualties.
Do you want to reduce casualties, Zach? Then...
> get rid of gun-free zones;
> do not give any press whatsover to the vermin killer. This only serves to innervate the next madman watching CNN to become the next vermin mass killer (in the name of fame!).
> FORCE the media to report on Defensive Gun Uses in the United States, which number potentially in the MILLIONS of DGU per YEAR. (that's like saying that MILLIONS of lives are saved by use of a gun YEARLY, for those needing it spelled out.
> Report what medical history the vermin have. Betcha dollars to doughnuts you'll find alot of psychotropics in there (but media doesn't report this because it flies against the gun-control narrative, don'tcha know...?)
> Finally, report the IDEOLOGICAL BACKGROUND of these vermin shooters. You will find that almost to a creature, they...
> are anti-Christian,
> anti-western civilization,
> anti U.S,
> are Atheist, or radical Leftist
> and always seem to vote for the democrats or bernie sanders' of the world.
The JG: Mandalay/Vegas shooting is the outlier of outliers
The problem with so-called outliers is that they are easily replicated. By the measure which started this thread, 9-11 was only a blip on the death rate. However, because it was a concerted attack, it could be repeated, so it was important to take reasonable countermeasures to prevent just such a recurrence.
The JG: Correia posted primary sources a long time ago, which I don't have.
Without a primary source, it's difficult to understand the specific details of the correlation claimed.
The JG: > do not give any press whatsover to the vermin killer... > FORCE the media to report ...
So to protect the 2nd Amendment, you would sacrifice the 1st Amendment. "Shooting yourself in the foot" comes to mind.
9-11 is not a mass-shooting. Vegas has much more in common with 9-11 than it does with the church shooting. Why the conflation between the two?
"... without a primary source..." - it's out there in internets land. do your own legwork on it; i won't look it up for you.
".. sacrifice the 1st amendment..." - where does my idea about forcing the leftist, Pravda-on-Hudson, msm commies to talk about fact-based truths (that happen to run counter to their propaganda...) sacrifice the 1st Amendment?
shooting myself in the foot. easy solution, don't stand next to me.
still waiting on an answer about who comprises your "we defined the goal.." yada yada.
the Jacksonian Grouch: 9-11 is not a mass-shooting.
No. It's an example of an event which is "only a blip" on the death rate, showing that such anomalies may have oversized importance if they are repeatable and avoidable events.
the Jacksonian Grouch: do your own legwork on it; i won't look it up for you
In other words, it's not important enough for you to support your own arguments, but that others should do it for you.
the Jacksonian Grouch: where does my idea about forcing the leftist, Pravda-on-Hudson, msm commies to talk about fact-based truths (that happen to run counter to their propaganda...) sacrifice the 1st Amendment?
Forcing someone to mouth your words, to "FORCE the media to report" what you want, is a patent violation of freedom of speech.
you know, my telling you to do your own legwork on primary sources is not the same as you doing it for me. Nor is my not giving you sources that you can - and should! - be getting yourself is not "lacking in importance to support my own arguments".
Your opinion of what I do is irrelevant to me.
And I think you're full of it.
So, i'm going to disconnect from this thread; and leave you with a few things i've learned over the decades.
1. You seem like a nice guy, reasonable, at first impression, seemingly willing to listen and disagree civilly. Looking a little deeper, i'd say you're adept enough with words to avoid answering certain things, misrepresenting others, or trying to virtue-signal Constitutional Amendments with me.
Boring. Not impressed. Reminds me of trying to discuss things with a leftist. it's oil and water.
reminds me of the story about the purchase of Manhattan for the equivalent of 24 dollars from the injuns. The Dutch went back to their camp and told the settlers, "Can you believe how dumb these injuns are? They sold us the whole ISLAND of manhattan for a pittance!"
And the injuns who did not have a concept of land ownership/property as we do, went back to their camp, saying, "can you believe these stupid palefaces? They gave us freestuff so they can use the LAND!"
be well, zach - keep your powder dry - when the SHTF, we're going to need moderates like you to ante up and kick in with the rest of us Patriots.